how progressives are becoming their own worst enemy
George Orwell once said, “Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Canceling someone who aligns with your political beliefs based on past expressions of free speech—no matter how distasteful those expressions may have been (within reason) —undermines the very essence of free speech. This freedom is foundational to the evolution and exchange of ideas, which in turn allows individuals to grow and reconsider their positions. By not allowing people the space to evolve, we effectively render free speech meaningless.
There is a growing tendency at the extremes of the political spectrum to view support for the opposing party as tantamount to treason, branding individuals as fascists or other derogatory terms. This lack of forgiveness not only stifles progress but also risks transforming the movement into a form of authoritarianism, dictated by the whims of groupthink and the phenomena of ‘cancel culture.’ Cancel culture, in this context, refers to the deliberate silencing or marginalization of individuals whose ideas fail to meet the moral standards of a particularly vocal minority. This approach is deeply problematic for society as a whole.
The current far left’s inclination to cancel individuals based on morally questionable actions or statements from their past is actively hindering social progress. To illustrate why this is problematic, it’s instructive to look at historical figures who are celebrated today for their contributions to social movements. These figures often succeeded not despite their pasts, but because they were allowed to grow and evolve, and because their followers and contemporaries recognized the importance of forgiveness and transformation.
Malcolm X
Malcolm X serves as the first example. A pivotal figure in the civil rights movement, Malcolm X was instrumental in exposing how systemic racism permeated American society. Initially, he propagated radical, and at times, racist ideas, advocating for the segregation of Black and white people. For instance, he opposed interracial marriage, believing that racial integration was detrimental to the Black community. However, his transformative journey to Mecca late in his life led to a profound shift in his views. He came to understand that the problem was not the white man per se, but rather the system in which white supremacy was entrenched. Regardless of one’s political stance, Malcolm X’s shift from racial hostility to systemic critique was crucial for the civil rights movement. His personal growth allowed his ideas to gain broader acceptance and made his contributions to the movement even more impactful.
Nelson Mandela
The second example is Nelson Mandela, who exemplifies the power of forgiveness in the pursuit of social justice. After being imprisoned for 27 years on Robben Island, Mandela emerged not with a desire for vengeance, but with a commitment to reconciliation. He recognized that in order to unite South Africa and dismantle the apartheid regime—a brutal system of racial segregation that privileged white South Africans over the Black majority—he had to forgive those who had wronged him. Mandela’s willingness to forgive his oppressors was instrumental in preventing a civil war and ensuring a peaceful transition to a multiracial democracy. His example demonstrates that forgiveness is not just a moral imperative but a practical strategy for achieving lasting social change.
Both Malcolm X and Nelson Mandela highlight the importance of forgiveness in the success of progressive movements. Whether it’s forgiving a leader’s checkered past or forgiving an entire group of oppressors, this capacity for forgiveness has often been the key to achieving social progress. The current left’s intolerance for differing opinions and its propensity for canceling individuals based on past transgressions represents a concerning departure from this tradition of forgiveness. Without the ability to forgive and to accept the evolution of ideas, we risk stalling the very progress we seek to achieve.
How Does the Influencer Brooke Schofield Tie into This?
Brooke Schofield’s situation offers a contemporary illustration of this issue. From 2012 to 2018, Schofield made a number of questionable and problematic statements on social media. In response to justified backlash, she publicly addressed these statements, clearly indicating that she no longer holds those views. In fact, Schofield has since demonstrated a commitment to social justice, evidenced by her support for movements like Black Lives Matter. However, the attempt to cancel her for simply liking a presidential candidate’s Instagram post is emblematic of a broader problem within progressive circles: the belief that anyone who does not align perfectly with a particular moral standard should be silenced. In a two-party system, this attitude implies that only one party holds the moral high ground, and dissenting voices must be suppressed. This is not only antithetical to free speech but also to the democratic exchange of ideas.
Conclusion
The free dissemination of ideas and the capacity for individuals to grow and change are critical for societal advancement. The current lack of forgiveness and intolerance for past unsavory ideas within the progressive movement poses a significant threat to social progress. For productive discourse to occur, both conservative and progressive voices need to be heard within a framework that values free speech and the evolution of thought. Only then can we hope to achieve meaningful and lasting social change. Comment what you think.